TheMustangSource.com's Exclusive Coverage!
#241
Well you have to take into effect the aerodynamics as well. The Ford GT is like a missile whereas the GT500 is not as aerodynamic or has as low a center of gravity.
Now pure power I could only guess, but being able to apply that power fully is another issue.
<disclaimer> I am not saying that the GT500 is designed poorly, it was built upon a blocky muscle car design. Just saying once you get that fast the force of air going under the car will develop lift...the car could actually start flying. :shock:
The GT is designed with more downforce and less air gets under it.
I'm sure I didn't say that right, I usually have to draw a picture.
Now pure power I could only guess, but being able to apply that power fully is another issue.
<disclaimer> I am not saying that the GT500 is designed poorly, it was built upon a blocky muscle car design. Just saying once you get that fast the force of air going under the car will develop lift...the car could actually start flying. :shock:
The GT is designed with more downforce and less air gets under it.
I'm sure I didn't say that right, I usually have to draw a picture.
#242
see the link. There's other concepts if you haven't seen them.
http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/shows/detr.../ford/index.htm
#243
Originally posted by MilStang@January 15, 2006, 8:45 AM
Well you have to take into effect the aerodynamics as well. The Ford GT is like a missile whereas the GT500 is not as aerodynamic or has as low a center of gravity.
Now pure power I could only guess, but being able to apply that power fully is another issue.
<disclaimer> I am not saying that the GT500 is designed poorly, it was built upon a blocky muscle car design. Just saying once you get that fast the force of air going under the car will develop lift...the car could actually start flying. :shock:
The GT is designed with more downforce and less air gets under it.
I'm sure I didn't say that right, I usually have to draw a picture.
Well you have to take into effect the aerodynamics as well. The Ford GT is like a missile whereas the GT500 is not as aerodynamic or has as low a center of gravity.
Now pure power I could only guess, but being able to apply that power fully is another issue.
<disclaimer> I am not saying that the GT500 is designed poorly, it was built upon a blocky muscle car design. Just saying once you get that fast the force of air going under the car will develop lift...the car could actually start flying. :shock:
The GT is designed with more downforce and less air gets under it.
I'm sure I didn't say that right, I usually have to draw a picture.
You explained yourself fine, no pictures needed, and I agree with you.
So what's your guess 180 mph??? :scratch: :scratch:
#244
Originally posted by klingonford@January 15, 2006, 9:37 AM
You explained yourself fine, no pictures needed, and I agree with you.
So what's your guess 180 mph??? :scratch: :scratch:
You explained yourself fine, no pictures needed, and I agree with you.
So what's your guess 180 mph??? :scratch: :scratch:
#245
I think 180 is possible, however it would depend on the slant of the car from back to front. If it can create enough down force to counter the amount of air traversing underneath I think 180 is very possible. After that you are just getting beyond the means of the car. Above 200 I think the sheer force of wind going through the front would rip the hood off.
But who knows...I could be completely wrong.
But who knows...I could be completely wrong.
#246
Originally posted by softbatch@January 15, 2006, 10:16 AM
The problem is the GT500 may not be made to go that fast, at that speed it might have enough lift to throw the car in the air.
The problem is the GT500 may not be made to go that fast, at that speed it might have enough lift to throw the car in the air.
The GT500 might get damaged!
#247
Originally posted by max2000jp@January 14, 2006, 4:35 PM
Simplistic, definetly not. Again, this is a Ford site so everyone will obviously defend the Ford. I tend to have no brand loyalty; I will buy what performs. The GT and Z06 are both under-tired. I know that the C6 Z06 uses Goodyear F1 EMTs and IIRC the GT does too. Both cars have no wear near race car safety structures. If you lose it at 125 in both cars, better hope your life insurance policy is intact. Chevy offers a lot more performance for the dollar in the Z06, that was my original point.
Simplistic, definetly not. Again, this is a Ford site so everyone will obviously defend the Ford. I tend to have no brand loyalty; I will buy what performs. The GT and Z06 are both under-tired. I know that the C6 Z06 uses Goodyear F1 EMTs and IIRC the GT does too. Both cars have no wear near race car safety structures. If you lose it at 125 in both cars, better hope your life insurance policy is intact. Chevy offers a lot more performance for the dollar in the Z06, that was my original point.
Also, I don't believe the Z06 to be under-tired. But, putting myself in your shoes and assuming that the Z06 is under-tired then by that standard one could only assume that the far torquier, heavier, mid-engined GT must be ludicrously under-tired. Yes, either way this is Ford's doing. But, when I buy a car I am buying the package and if the GT has a more capable chassis wether or not Ford has reached those limits...and it does...that is a factor.
That said, comments made by GM's own test driver, and factory team driver no less, regarding the Z06 absolutely lead one to believe this chassis is all there right now. IMO more hp or tire would likely serve only to make the car more challenging, and more frightening, to drive but not much faster in the real world. The GT is relatively doscile by supercar standards and most tests of the car are followed by comments that the GT could easily handle another 100-200hp and could absolutely use much more tire.
Some may cry foul when comparing these cars and discussing how well they may take to larger tires or more boost/more hp. But I find it pretty obvious that more tire and another couple hundred hp would only serve to make the GT far faster while I don't think this can really be said of the Z06. Again if I am buying the car these are considerations as I am buying a chassis based on it's potential, not just how much of that potential Ford or GM has tapped.
Also, I cannot help but notice that within every magazine that has compared the GT to the Z06 I have yet to find a single claim that the GT was not worth it's price premium. In fact, Motor Tend and Automobile both directly stated just the opposite, that the Ford was absolutely worth it's price premium. I don't care to magazine race but however jaded any of us may be these guys drive supercars every day and are far more jaded than any of us.
Finally, if I am not mistaken one or more GT's were lost in testing, at high speeds no less, and the driver(s) was/were just fine. However you may feel the Vette's structure is nowhere near the equal of the GT's in regards to occupant protection by nature of their designs. And frankly, if I am going to be travelling at consistently high speeds this is going to be a factor for me.
#248
"Some may cry foul when comparing these cars and discussing how well they may take to larger tires or more boost/more hp. But I find it pretty obvious that more tire and another couple hundred hp would only serve to make the GT far faster while I don't think this can really be said of the Z06. Again if I am buying the car these are considerations as I am buying a chassis based on it's potential, not just how much of that potential Ford or GM has tapped. "
I particularly agree with that paragraph.
I particularly agree with that paragraph.
#249
Originally posted by jsaylor@January 16, 2006, 4:03 PM
Actually, I don't think the GT needs much defense. First let me begin by saying that I am often surprised at the number of folks who will defend 50k German car basd on intangibles, but then take exactly the opposite attitude regarding an American car like the GT. Assuming that the Z06 was every bit as capable as the GT, to claim that this alone, or even primarily, should dictate price just made every BMW and Mercedes on earth a joke.
Also, I don't believe the Z06 to be under-tired. But, putting myself in your shoes and assuming that the Z06 is under-tired then by that standard one could only assume that the far torquier, heavier, mid-engined GT must be ludicrously under-tired. Yes, either way this is Ford's doing. But, when I buy a car I am buying the package and if the GT has a more capable chassis wether or not Ford has reached those limits...and it does...that is a factor.
That said, comments made by GM's own test driver, and factory team driver no less, regarding the Z06 absolutely lead one to believe this chassis is all there right now. IMO more hp or tire would likely serve only to make the car more challenging, and more frightening, to drive but not much faster in the real world. The GT is relatively doscile by supercar standards and most tests of the car are followed by comments that the GT could easily handle another 100-200hp and could absolutely use much more tire.
Some may cry foul when comparing these cars and discussing how well they may take to larger tires or more boost/more hp. But I find it pretty obvious that more tire and another couple hundred hp would only serve to make the GT far faster while I don't think this can really be said of the Z06. Again if I am buying the car these are considerations as I am buying a chassis based on it's potential, not just how much of that potential Ford or GM has tapped.
Also, I cannot help but notice that within every magazine that has compared the GT to the Z06 I have yet to find a single claim that the GT was not worth it's price premium. In fact, Motor Tend and Automobile both directly stated just the opposite, that the Ford was absolutely worth it's price premium. I don't care to magazine race but however jaded any of us may be these guys drive supercars every day and are far more jaded than any of us.
Finally, if I am not mistaken one or more GT's were lost in testing, at high speeds no less, and the driver(s) was/were just fine. However you may feel the Vette's structure is nowhere near the equal of the GT's in regards to occupant protection by nature of their designs. And frankly, if I am going to be travelling at consistently high speeds this is going to be a factor for me.
Actually, I don't think the GT needs much defense. First let me begin by saying that I am often surprised at the number of folks who will defend 50k German car basd on intangibles, but then take exactly the opposite attitude regarding an American car like the GT. Assuming that the Z06 was every bit as capable as the GT, to claim that this alone, or even primarily, should dictate price just made every BMW and Mercedes on earth a joke.
Also, I don't believe the Z06 to be under-tired. But, putting myself in your shoes and assuming that the Z06 is under-tired then by that standard one could only assume that the far torquier, heavier, mid-engined GT must be ludicrously under-tired. Yes, either way this is Ford's doing. But, when I buy a car I am buying the package and if the GT has a more capable chassis wether or not Ford has reached those limits...and it does...that is a factor.
That said, comments made by GM's own test driver, and factory team driver no less, regarding the Z06 absolutely lead one to believe this chassis is all there right now. IMO more hp or tire would likely serve only to make the car more challenging, and more frightening, to drive but not much faster in the real world. The GT is relatively doscile by supercar standards and most tests of the car are followed by comments that the GT could easily handle another 100-200hp and could absolutely use much more tire.
Some may cry foul when comparing these cars and discussing how well they may take to larger tires or more boost/more hp. But I find it pretty obvious that more tire and another couple hundred hp would only serve to make the GT far faster while I don't think this can really be said of the Z06. Again if I am buying the car these are considerations as I am buying a chassis based on it's potential, not just how much of that potential Ford or GM has tapped.
Also, I cannot help but notice that within every magazine that has compared the GT to the Z06 I have yet to find a single claim that the GT was not worth it's price premium. In fact, Motor Tend and Automobile both directly stated just the opposite, that the Ford was absolutely worth it's price premium. I don't care to magazine race but however jaded any of us may be these guys drive supercars every day and are far more jaded than any of us.
Finally, if I am not mistaken one or more GT's were lost in testing, at high speeds no less, and the driver(s) was/were just fine. However you may feel the Vette's structure is nowhere near the equal of the GT's in regards to occupant protection by nature of their designs. And frankly, if I am going to be travelling at consistently high speeds this is going to be a factor for me.
In regards to the structure. The GT's and Z06 are both IMO very safe to a point. Neither have a safety cage and rely on street car safety technolgy. There was an instructor than died in a Carrera GT last year and it has monocoque F1 inspired CF structure. He was traveling at ~100 mph IIRC. There was a video and pics floating around at one time.
I really like the GT for it's uniqueness and like the Z06 for its value. It will be interesting to see if GM builds the "Blue Devil" Vette and LS2 Camaro. We all benefit because competition breeds innovation.
#250
GM doesn't need the Blue Devil, the Z06 is untouchable at its price point and will be for a while.
Like you noted, People will buy the GT for its uniqueness and people will buy the Z06 for its value, I can't see many cross-shopping the two.
Like you noted, People will buy the GT for its uniqueness and people will buy the Z06 for its value, I can't see many cross-shopping the two.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
tj@steeda
2015 - 2023 MUSTANG
0
9/10/15 12:44 PM
tj@steeda
2015 - 2023 MUSTANG
0
9/8/15 10:45 AM